Search This Blog

Thursday, January 30, 2014

This article was originally written for discussion among activists of the Party
of European Socialists (the European-level umbrella party for Europe's socialist
and social-democratic parties). The purpose of the article is to attack the
"defeatist realism" that dominates modern social-democracy and to call for a
discursive shift; primarily in terms of the language and subsequent mindset that
dominates centre-left politics. Particularly in these times, there is no future
in wishy-washy politics that merely plead (without the institutional power to
even enforce it) a slightly "nicer" form of capitalism. Ironically, in a time
of crisis and institutional failure it is actually less realistic to be
"moderate" than it is to be "radical". The Left needs a new paradigm and a new
way of looking at the world if we are to have any kind of future worth living
in.

By Shayn McCallum

There are a
lot of good ideas being generated among social-democratic thinkers these days
and, although this article is going to be critical in many respects, of the
current state of social-democracy in Europe, it is absolutely worth
acknowledging the excellent work being done by progressive intellectuals on
constructing a new European political economy.The task facing social-democracy (and the European project) is, it must
be acknowledged, massive and, in
attempting to move forward, it must also be admitted that there is a certain
exhaustion, a sense of the weight of history, that seems to have us all
dragging our feet.Fear of repeating
past mistakes, or being perceived to be doing so, is of particular concern for
a movement that represents one of the oldest political traditions in
Europe.The current, rather timid,
mind-set of social-democracy is therefore somewhat understandable but, to
contradict a certain French philosopher; “to understand everything is not to excuse everything”.Social-democracy is well known as a pragmatic
political tendency that avoids elaborate theories and, while this approach has
arguably had its strengths at certain points in history, it is now rapidly
becoming the Achilles heel of the movement, as a lack of clear thinking and
analysis is frustrating the kinds of bold clear messages that social-democrats
need to be transmitting to the European public.

The Cold
War has been over now for over twenty years yet it seems like we still live,
and think, under the long shadow cast by the Twentieth Century.Surely this far into the new millennium it is
high time for a radical shift in thinking, especially for social-democrats
because, of all the political movements that have survived the last two
centuries, social-democracy has, arguably, been the most negatively influenced
by the legacy of the Cold-War mind-set.Social-democracy represented, throughout the Twentieth Century, a “third
camp” standing against the theoretical and ideological dogmas of both Bolshevism
and liberal capitalism.Yet,
social-democrats, like virtually everyone else, became entangled in the intrigues
of the Cold War and wound up pulled both right and left by the gravitational
force of the two ideological poles that dominated the global thinking at that
time.When the Cold War ended, liberals
and conservatives moved quickly to announce not merely the death of
Soviet-style communism but that of all variations of socialism.Social-democracy was caught unprepared and
demoralised.Trapped in the
push-and-pull of Cold-War assumptions about socialism and capitalism,
social-democrats were too quick to let go of the socialist tradition (which,
after all, is historically as much, if not more, the property of
social-democracy as it ever was of the communists) and far too willing to
accept unqualified and unjustified liberal assertions of the inevitability of
capitalism.

The confusion
on the Left triggered by the exhilarating events of 1989 however, should be
long past by now.Even then, just after
the wall had come down, it may be argued that it was not really capitalism that
had won but, rather, democracy (however much the dominant discourse of those
times attempted to conflate and confuse these two concepts).It may even be claimed, judging by the
results of elections held throughout Europe after 1989, that the true victor
seemed to be, specifically, social-democracy.Yet, the failure of social-democrats themselves to understand the
difference between democracy and capitalism meant they were, in essence,
defeated even in victory.The 1990’s
were a decade of social-democratic governments elected throughout Europe, however,
these governments ultimately delivered the same kinds of neo-liberal policies
as the Right.The result of the
flirtations of social-democracy with neo-liberal “lite” policies has been a
sharp decline in the credibility of the movement and, more dangerously, in
politics as a whole.In many countries,
social-democratic parties have lost votes and faced large-scale defections of
members (a process observed at its nadir in Germany’s SPD) and the perceived
absence of alternatives in politics, underscored by the perception that
social-democracy had transitioned rightwards to become practically indistinguishable
from its liberal and conservative rivals, has reinforced the growing cynicism
and lack of enthusiasm among European electorates for formal politics as a
whole.This, in light of history, should
be setting off alarm bells and it is pretty clear that something needs to be
done to regain confidence in politics once more.It will doubtlessly take time to
re-establish the reputation of social-democracy as a force for progressive
change but, realistically, it is highly doubtful that this can be achieved
without first taking stock of the seriousness of the situation and embracing a fairly
radical shift in direction and narrative.

The first
sign of this shift should be a change in the language we use.For a start, we desperately need to stop
talking about “decent capitalism”, “responsible capitalism” or any other
formula involving the word “capitalism”.The ideological trap of accepting the TINA (There Is No Alternative)
conceit cannot but imprison social-democracy in a fruitless, defensive
discourse.Words matter because they all
too often operate as semeiotic indicators that by-pass our own critical,
rational thought processes leading us to believe we understand something
whereas, in reality, we have failed to think deeply on its meaning at all[i].We react emotionally to words such as
“capitalism”, “socialism”, “democracy”, “terrorism”, “fascism” or “human
rights” long before our conscious brain has analysed the embedded historical
and ideological content behind these casual labels (which, of course, makes
them so useful as mere rhetorical epithets).

Capitalism,
used as a neutral or positive term, is for social-democrats, quite simply
“enemy territory”.If social-democrats
attempt to position themselves (especially in the current era which is not the
1970’s by any means) as “the people who do capitalism better” they will most
likely fail.Why not instead try to
reposition social-democracy as the “people who are serious about building and
defending a democratic society”?This
would have the advantage of refocusing attention on the fact that we live in
societies not economies and that democracy ideally means participation, or at
least the right to participation, by everyone in the discussion and process of
shaping the society we live in.One of
the first problems social-democratic programs run up against is the reality
that both globalisation and Europeanisation have, in effect, weakened political
(i.e. democratic) control over markets and privileged the economy over social
and political factors.This is not some
random, inevitable, freak event of history but the result of a conscious set of
choices made by political actors, (including social-democrats themselves) but,
like all political processes, it may be reversed or at least reconsidered.Part of the task of presenting an alternative
to the current disaster in Europe, therefore, needs to be building support for
change to the existing institutional arrangements of the EU.

The future
of European social-democracy largely depends on the ability to kindle a degree
of public enthusiasm for institutional change at the European level and this
will demand the cultivation of a skilful, passionate narrative able to draw
public attention towards issues often perceived as “dull” or “irrelevant”.Can talk of decent capitalism create this
level of public enthusiasm?Apart from
the argument that talk of “decent capitalism” is intrinsically problematic,
excessively limiting and undesirable, it is fairly apparent that, without the
institutional basis for implementing a regulatory framework, even the idea of
“decent capitalism”, however moderate and “reasonable” it may seem, in fact, amounts
to little more than a weakly optimistic pipe-dream.

Furthermore,
it needs to be asked; what is this “capitalism” anyway?The term gets used constantly and by all
parties.The centre-left talks of
“decent capitalism”, while the centre-right merely uses the term in its
unadorned simplicity without the need for qualifying adjectives, yet what is
actually meant by this highly charged and loaded noun? There is seldom
perceived much of a need to define it at all, as Left and Right alike have
blithely accepted that “capitalism is all there is”.Capitalism, in one form or another, is
accepted as the only viable economic system left to us.However, what if this assumption were
ultimately nonsense?Fred Block,
professor of Sociology at Davis University, for example, questions, quite
persuasively, the utility of talking about capitalism at all[ii].

Capitalism, rather like its 20th
Century rival, communism, is a utopia (or a dystopia for many of us) that
imagines a society based on a self-regulating market.The fact that this system causes crises and
collapse whenever and wherever its ideologues attempt to impose it has still
not heralded a general realisation that, rather like its much-discredited
rival, communism, capitalism does not work in any version of reality.Part of the problem comes from the legacy of
the Cold War mind-set where there were only two alternatives and now that
communism has collapsed, we have no choice but to tolerate capitalism and hope
for a more humanised version of it.

The story
we have told ourselves is, however, wrong from the start.We are trapped, essentially, between the competing,
yet complementary, narratives of Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayeck and the
economistic world view promoted by them both.The truth however, has always been more complex than the shadow war waged
between these two diametrically opposed, utopian ideologies would suggest.Historically, the complex space in between
these extremes, neither of which have ever been realised as living societies,
has been the natural habitat of social-democracy.Communists complained that the reformist
efforts of social-democrats were merely prolonging the life of capitalism and
delaying the ultimate triumph of socialism while liberals argued that
social-democratic reforms were distorting market forces and would ultimately
lead to totalitarianism.Yet, for all
the denunciations from the Left and Right wings of the economistic world-view,
social-democracy has arguably proved to be one of the most successful political
experiments in history.

The
question begs to be asked: what if social-democracy were not just “capitalism
with a human face” but rather a distinct political economy in its own
right?What if, rather than according to
Marx and Hayeck, we decided to read the Twentieth Century through the lens of
Karl Polanyi?

According to Polanyi, capitalism could be
understood as the attempt to impose a self-regulating market on society (an
attempt, incidentally that was doomed to failure according to Polanyi).The destruction wreaked by such an attempt
however, would always arouse a defensive counter-movement as various groups in
society sought to protect their values, traditions and lifestyles from the
effects of marketization.As a
socialist, Polanyi believed that the highest form this resistance could take
was socialism, which he defined as “the tendency inherent in an industrial
civilisation to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously
subordinating it to a democratic society”[iii].Thus, we now have a theoretical paradigm in
which the political (specifically democratic) understanding of society is set
in opposition to the econocentric ideology of capitalism.Capitalism, if we choose to use the term at
all, may therefore be seen as an anti-democratic attempt to impose the
sovereignty of capital through the subtle substituton of market forces for
political decision-making, whereas socialism (again, if we wish to use the
term) may be understood as the attempt to subordinate the economy to the
democratic will of society.

The Polanyian understanding has radical implications and, potentially
enables social-democrats to fundamentally re-frame the terrain of political
discourse.Rather than being trapped in
the role of “political cry-babies” and “bleeding hearts” who try to “sugar-coat”
the necessary pill of austerity to ensure the viability of the market project,
social-democrats should reposition themselvesas the political force serious about advancing and deepening democracy,
not only in the formal, representative sense, but as a way of life that permeates
society at all levels.In this way,
social-democracy can create the kinds of arguments that enable it to seize the
initiative and finally begin to put its neo-liberal rivals on the defensive.

Something like this understanding of social-democracy is, in fact,
emerging.Martin Schulz, for example, who
will hopefully be the next president of the EU, to a very large extent embodies
the vision of social-democracy articulated here, as can be seen from his
remarks and speeches in various forums and his impressive track-record as a passionate,
dogged fighter for social justice.Social-democrats must live up to their name and be prepared to be
seriously committed to a true socialisation of democracy.This means new institutions and it means
being prepared to struggle, with passion and conviction, for a new kind of
society.This does not necessarily entail
the pursuit of ideological utopias but rather what a number of social-democrats
have begun to call “a good society”.This is, it seems, an excellent choice of terms to sum up the goals of
modern social-democracy.

Social-democrats have always been reformists.Social-democracy is not about overthrowing
existing structures in some kind of violent act of revolution.This does not, however, mean that
social-democrats are not radical.At its
core, social-democracy has always harboured a deeply transformative potential,
albeit not towards some kind of pre-conceived utopia but always in the pursuit
of “a good society”.Moreover,
historically, we have always known, more-or-less, the features of this “good
society”; a society where individuals are free, and supported by well-developed,
democratic and transparent social, political and economic structures to develop
to their fullest potential, where everyone enjoys equality of rights,
opportunities and standards of living with their fellows, and nobody is subject
to exploitation, discrimination or intolerance on any economic, social or
political grounds.

Is such an ideal really so utopian?Given how far our movement has come and the great achievements and
successes of our past there is really no reason for pessimism but the times we
live in call for boldness and vision not “business-as-usual” or a slightly
nicer version of the same.We need to
change our way of thinking and reflect this in our way of speaking.Let’s stop defending “capitalism” and start
talking more of democracy.Let’s go
further and even stop talking about a “market economy”.

It is true that social-democrats have pretty much universally accepted the
utility of markets but, nonetheless, markets still need to be kept in their
place.There is a subtle, but important
difference between a “market economy” and “an economy which uses markets”.Moreover, within our movement there needs to
be more discussion on which areas of society and the economy need to be
protected from market forces for the sake of defending our values of equity,
equality and participation.Of course,
having recognised the importance of the political and the necessity of
advancing and deepening democracy, social-democrats will need to engage in a
forceful,strategic program of
institutional reform at the European level to create the, currently
non-existent,structures to practically
enable social-democratic changes to the European political-economy to take
place.

Programmatically, good ideas are emerging and excellent practical measures
to institute a new political economy are being developed within our
movement.There is much reason for
optimism but there are challenges that should not be underestimated.When the Pope is prepared to denounce the
evils of capitalism from the Vatican it is embarrassing that the socialist
movement timorously hesitates to do so.Free markets lead to unfree people and the ruination of nature.Indeed, the proverbial elephant in the room
when it comes to modern capitalism is the looming environmental crisis that
threatens to make our piddling concerns over the fate of the Euro as
significant as the squabbles of two fools over who gets the comfiest chair on
the deck of the Titanic.We do need to
question and revise our economic goals and assumptions and recognise that the
capitalist mentality of endless growth goes against all the logic of nature and
its imposition of limits on all its systems.Sustainability needs to be more than a slogan but something
social-democrats are prepared to bravely explore and develop into a
politicised, tangible reality.Doing
this will require more than a passing nod to greenwash-type palliatives.

Furthermore, we also need to reject and forcefully attack the nonsensical “common-sense”
idea that capitalism is about “freedom” whereas socialism (or social-democracy)
“inhibits freedom for the sake of equality”.It takes very little reflection to realise that true freedom is totally
dependent on a significant degree of equality, just as equality is
fundamentally predicated on freedom.

To illustrate this point; freedom without equality ends up a grotesque lie,
equivalent to the observation of Émile Zola that the law forbids rich and poor
alike from sleeping under bridges.Without equality, there is no means of exercising formal freedoms.Likewise, equality without freedom can only
ever amount to the equality of prison inmates who resemble each other in the
misery of their condition.Yet, in a
prison (or a Soviet-type state) this “equality” must be enforced by guardians
or commissars who are empowered to do so, thus, there can be, in this case, no
true equality at all.True equality can
emerge only under conditions of freedom just as freedom can only be meaningfully
enjoyed when it is available equally to all.

Social-democracy is perhaps the only political tradition which can claim a
history of pursuing both freedom and equality as part of its most fundamental
values and raison d’être.The future
success of social-democracy lies in how well it learns to speak to the human
heart and imagination.Once upon a
time, socialists were renowned as dreamers and story-tellers rather than
policy-wonks and say-anything-to-get-elected spin-doctors.It’s about time we re-learned the art of
inspiration through a political narrative capable of capturing the public
imagination, if only because this story was based on the finest, most beautiful
values of humanity. These may still,
even now, be summarised in the old French revolutionary slogan of “liberty,
equality and fraternity” which, somehow, still manages to express everything
most essential about a “good society”.

[i]
Considerable work has been carried out on the importance of language in
politics by the neuroscientist George Lakoff and, in a highly parallel manner,
Drew Westen.See the following
publications:

Lakoff,
George: The Political Mind:Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century

Politics with an 18th-Century
Brain, Penguin,
NY 2008

Westen,
Drew: The Political Brain:the Role of Emotion in Understanding
the

Fate of the Nation PublicAffairs, NY 2007

[ii]Block,
Fred. 2012. "Varieties of What? Should We Still be Using
the Concept of Capitalism." Political Power and Social
Theory, vol. 23.

[iii] Polanyi Karl (2001 (1944) The
Great Transformation, The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Boston,

Monday, January 13, 2014

Terry Barnes, a former former senior advisor to Prime Minister Tony
Abbott has suggested a $6 dollar surcharge on bulkbilling via
Medicare in order "to send a price signal". The suggestion is
contained in a submission sent to the government's Commission of Audit, so may
end-up becoming government policy.

The motive behind this proposal, apparently, is to save money through an
'efficiency dividend'; deterring only unnecessary bulk billing. However,
welfare lobbyists are pointing to the regressive distributive outcomes of the
policy; as well as the possibility that genuinely ill low income and welfare
dependent Australians may not seek medical care when they need it. And also
that the decision may place more strain on our hospitals. Of crucial note here:
a great number of doctors already fail to bulk bill – and in that sense
a 'price signal' already exists for many.

The Federal Government had already made some controversial decisions
recently on the Health services front. The Conservatives' decision to remove means testing from the Private Health Insurance Rebate will also involve regressive distributive outcomes when it is ultimately implemented. (according to Abbott, when the Budget is in surplus) Dan Harrison of the Sydney Morning Herald has
pointed out that abolishing the rebate entirely could save $3 billion. Though because the rebate is the
'Conservatives' baby' that outcome is unlikely so long as Abbott is in power.

On the other hand, the Conservatives like to retain the pretence of
'providing for the battlers'. And there are ways in which this could be
provided for even should the government decide to adopt a surcharge and
maintaining the rebate in some form.

Firstly, the means test on the Private Health Insurance Rebate needs to
be restored. And the savings should be directed to a restructuring of the
scheme. Savings here could be balanced between improvements in the Private
Health Insurance Rebate for low income policy holders on the one hand, and
improvements in the public health care system on the other.

Welfare dependent and low income Australians could then receive an
'amnesty' for rebate eligibility. That is: so long as they were low income or
welfare-dependent they would not face spiralling private health insurance costs
should they fail to take out private health insurance. The existing 'Lifetime
Health Cover' policy – which imposes a cumulative loading
building up with an additional "2 per cent per annum" for consumers
over 30 who do not have private health insurance cover – effectively
discriminates against the poor. Low income Australians effectively 'have a gun
at their head' – and a choice to invest in private health insurance they cannot
afford; or to take their chances with an increasingly neglected public system.
It should be observed, also, that disadvantaged Australians could feel driven
to take out the most minimal private health insurance policy just to avoid this
cumulative loading, even though they receive only threadbare coverage in
return.

But providing an 'amnesty' with regards the 'Lifetime Health Cover' policy would also make
fiscal sense in that further subsidies for low income groups would be likely to
win more Australians over to private health insurance. (which after all was the
stated purpose of the whole policy!) This is quite simply because high income
earners can already afford private health insurance; but for low
income groups a stronger rebate and an amnesty could be decisive. And for those
low income Australians who had already passed the 'deadline' of their 30th
birthday – the lack of a full rebate as exists under the "Lifetime Health
Cover" policy is already a clear deterrent against taking out private
health insurance into the future.

Importantly, while older Australians already receive a higher rebate (40 per cent),
the same cannot be said for other pensioners. So by the same logic, a more
robust rebate for welfare dependent policy holders of 50 per cent could make
private health insurance a more realistic prospect for many. Notably: Seniors'
private health insurance from Medibank Private can cost in the vicinity of $2000 a year already. Before
the rebate, that's about 10 per cent of a Single Aged Pension in one hit; and it's before
we even begin to consider the impact of other cost-of-living pressures for low
income Australians. (energy, water, communications, accommodation, transport)
So to redress poverty and disadvantage, such measures must be combined with
reform of pensions as well.

The mean-spirited provisions of the Aged Pension, Newstart, Disability
and other payments ALSO already provide a deterrence preventing the poor and
vulnerable from seeking medical care as needed. Therefore robust subsidies
should be provided at a generous enough rate not only to address distributive
injustice from austere pensions, but also negate the existing deterrence for low
income Australians from seeking care as needed. New tax cuts for low income
earners, and payments for the welfare-dependent could therefore be provided at
a minimum rate of an extra $500 a year. Bulk-billing has already been
progressively eroded for far too long. But such reforms could provide a 'way
around' the dangers provided by that trend.

Of course there is the option of simply excluding pensioners from any surcharge which
apparently is being considered; though should that policy be implemented it
should also apply to ALL those considered to be on low incomes by any
reasonable measure. The existing low income bracket (necessary to access
the Low-Income Concession Card) applies to singles up to $500 a week, and
couples up to $848 a week. This is also far too restrictive and
mean-spirited. Arguably the bracket should be increased to thresholds of at
least $650 a week for singles, and at least $1000 a week for couples – indexed
to inflation or a cost-of-living index – whichever is the most generous. A
mixture of restored means testing, and the exclusion of low income and welfare
dependent Australians from any 'surcharge', would likely have a progressive
impact.

It is conceivable that the measures suggested here (taken together)
would not save $750 million over four years as anticipated by
Terry Barnes with his specific proposals. Indeed – including robust pension and
tax reform and an expansion of eligibility for 'low income' concessions - they
could cost the budget bottom line – and need to be supported with other structural
saves and progressive tax reform. Though it is important to observe that in
2012 Cassandra Goldie of ACOSS (the Australian Council of Social Service)
argued that means tests for the Private Health Insurance Rebate and other
associated measures could on their own save "$2.4 billion over three years".

The point would not necessarily be overall savings for the whole
package of proposals here, but greater efficiencies and a fairer system–
the benefit of which would be passed on to the disadvantaged, the poor and the
vulnerable both through socialised health care and state subsidy for a
means-tested Private Health Insurance Rebate. The 'price signal' suggested by
Barnes could still apply to non-disadvantaged Australians, recouping some of
the associated costs. Though special provisions could also apply to the
chronically ill, with the surcharge being waived from such people entirely.
Sending a 'price signal' to the chronically ill just wouldn't make sense as it
is indisputable that such people need constant care and feedback.

Again: the Federal Government must account for distributive outcomes as
a consequence of any policy. We do not need disadvantaged Australians to be
deterred from seeking medical assistance when they are in need. And neither
should we be imposing a surcharge whose structure and impact is similar to a
regressive flat tax.

Finally there is the prospect of the privatisation of Medibank Private.

Certainly the Ideology of privatisation has never been more entrenched.
And to be honest this is as much Labor's responsibility as it is that of the
Conservatives. But without getting in a general debate about privatisation,
there are two very likely or certain consequences of any Medibank Private
privatisation that deserve attention.

Firstly Medibank Private is paying the government almost half a billion in the financial year up to
October 2013. Though Fairfax has its net profit rate after tax at $233 million.
This was following a shift on the part of Medibank Private from a 'not for
profit' footing to a 'for profit footing' under the Prime Ministership of Kevin
Rudd in 2009. Arguably this policy had the effect of undermining the
mission of Medibank Private to provide very strong competition in the sector in
order to drive the cost of private health insurance for consumers down.

But regardless of Rudd Labor's decision, to forsake Medibank Private's
substantial dividends at a time when the government is arguing there is a
'budget emergency' does not make sense. Privatisation, here, will likely cost
the Budget bottom line and lead to further austerity against the vulnerable
later on.

Yet because of the central
historic mission of Medibank Private in injecting a vital dose of competition
into a sector which otherwise could be marked by greater collusion in the
context of an oligopoly, there is a convincing case to restore Medibank Private
to a 'not for profit' footing. Any foregone tax revenue should be made up
elsewhere (the alternative is likely a poorer deal for consumers).
Privatisation of Medibank Private would undoubtedly cost consumers over the
long run 'on two fronts' – not only forsaking dividends, but 'shutting the
door' on a return of the enterprise to a 'not for profit' footing.

And what is also notable is that currently a good portion of the Private Health
Insurance Rebate is recouped when increasing numbers of health consumers choose
Medibank Private for their health insurance policy.

This leaves the Federal Government with little more than an ideological agenda:
an outlook which Abbott had disavowed in his book 'Battlelines' – where he
claimed to be a 'practical' conservative."

Well: if Abbott meant it when he made those arguments then it is time to
put rhetoric into practice.

And for Bill Shorten and Labor: stating that any Medibank Private
privatisation will be reversed by an incoming Labor government could also
provide a welcome and popular deterrent.

To conclude: others on the Left may be surprised or dismayed that I am
arguing for reform of the Private Health Insurance Rebate which do not amount
to its outright abolition. In principle certainly I am in favour of a massive
injection of funds into socialised health care. I am in favour of a radical
expansion and progressive restructuring of the Medicare Levy - with billions
injected into dental, mental health, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - and all
areas of need.

I am also genuinely afraid that the mooted $6 surcharge could be 'the
thin end of the wedge' for a gradual erosion of public health, and the further
entrenchment of a 'two tier health system'. Here arguments about the 'ageing
population' need to be met head-on with counter-arguments pertaining to
distributive justice: and with reference to the priorities of our welfare state
and social wage. Certainly we have one of the most tightly targeted welfare
states in the world; and further progressive reform of tax, elimination of
'corporate welfare', and appropriate targeting of some programs (eg: the
Private Health Insurance Rebate again) – could save many billions. As Richard
Denniss of the Australia Institute also infers constantly: 'welfare for the rich' in
the form of superannuation concessions should be abolished – potentially saving
tens of billions. This can be extrapolated from his claim that over $10 billion
could be saved from removing the concessions from the top 5 per cent
income demographic alone. So removing those concessions from the top 15 per
cent, say, could go a very long way to neutralising the 'ageing population
crisis', with the associated health costs. Do we really need 'welfare for the
rich' in the form of superannuation concessions for millionaires? And what
rationale is there when such a policy does nothing to further reduce the
overall costs to the Budget when both Concessions and Pensions are taken into
account ?

Progressive reforms in public health are more likely to occur under a
Labor government. But so long as we endure under a Conservative government
Labor and the Greens need to be open to compromises which could be of benefit
to their core supporters amongst the poor, the vulnerable and the
disadvantaged. Apparently no decision has been made yet on the matter of the
policies suggested by Terry Barnes. But should some kind of 'surcharge' be
implemented the compromises I am suggesting here could matter a great deal for
disadvantaged Australians in the meantime.

That is until the next Federal election – when it is to be hoped a
renewed Labor government will make the most of a progressive mandate on
distributive justice – radically and progressively expanding public health.

THE RED FLAG IS STILL FLYING HERE

INTERESTED IN SPONSORING THIS PAGE?

This blog and several other websites are maintained by Tristan Ewins for nothing in return. But I would greatly appreciate any progressive sponsors. This page and others I maintain attract many thousands of visitors every year. Some posts even attract over 1000 readers on their own. So in return for a significant donation your Advertisement or Message could appear here and at my other pages! That is: assuming you support the blog and its message, as well as other sites where your message could appear. Contact me at the following email if you are interested:tristane@bigpond.net.au

Total Pageviews

About Me

Tristan's areas of expertise include Australian and world politics, social theory, education, history, and computer gaming for PC. He considers himself a liberal, and also a socialist, but has also referred to himself as a left social democrat. He says such - conscious that there was once a time when 'social democracy' and 'socialism' were synonymous. Furthermore, Tristan is a long-time member of the Australian Labor Party - specifically its Socialist Left wing. He is also involved in the Australian Fabian Society. Tristan has written for many publications - including a stint freelancing for 'The Canberra Times': the daily broadsheet of the Australian Capital. Tristan's Personal Homepage is here: http://sites.google.com/site/tristanewinsfreelancewriter